San Diego — Good grief… the virtual ink had not even dried from the previous post when I got a direct email attacking me for trying to “impose my morality” on the situation and the lady witness that started all of this. I confess, some of you guys are incredibly good at being able to try to take attention from the real issues and force the discussion to something else.
This time it was accomplished by high centering on my use of the term “promiscuous” to describe the activity for which the contraceptives were being sought. “How dare I use that term,” I was asked; and who was I to sit in judgment of her behavior? I should apologize, I was told. Well, I did no such thing and so I am not about to apologize. But for the kool-aid addled among you I will explain it a little further.
First of all the term “promiscuity” is a word defining an abundance of casual sexual activity usually but not necessarily outside the bounds of a committed relationship or marriage. It is not, to me at least, a value laden word, only a descriptive one and in that sense would appear to be accurate since the witness openly told the officials she needed contraception to the tune of about $1,000.00 over the span of law school. At about $10.00 per month through Planned Parenthood, that amount covers far more than the typically three years of Law School even at one of the most prestigious and expensive law schools in the country.
However I did just look the word up and one of the definitions includes the word “indiscriminate” in choice of partners. i know we now use the term discriminate at peril but I think it is a good word referring to making carefully analysis and choosing right from wrong. In the case at hand I did not mean that particular definition since I assume someone going to Georgetown would be very discriminating in chosing partners based on class and social standing appropriate to their own agendas and future plans. To the extent that I opened the door for those of you needing to choose the worst possible definition then I do apologize since I meant the term only in a quantitative senses not a qualitative sense.
But under any possible definition or even throwing the term out altogether, here is the bottom line: she is saying that someone other than herself needs to foot the bill so she can have protected sex and have a high statistical probability of not getting pregnant.
I have no moral issue here, no ethical dog in the fight. Quite to the contrary, I like sex and think it is a wonderful thing. I would rather have people engaged in consensual recreational sex than in fighting and killing each other. When I was in college I would surely have been considered “promiscuous” by the same criteria I use here. It simply means I had a fair amount of sex. Period. Moreover I am in favor of her not being pregnant since I do not think she exhibited the maturity a child deserves in a parent so I applaud her desire to use contraceptives. But that is not the issue either.
That sex to which she is referring is recreational. Good for her; I think people have a right to engage in it recreationally just as they have a right to go to a movie or see a play or go camping or just sit at home and rent something to show on the TV. What they do in the privacy of their own space, so long as they are not hurting someone else or forcing themselves on someone else, is their own private business and does not, in my belief system, even bump into issues of my own sense of morality or my business.
However, what DOES bump into my business is when I am being asked to help pay for it. Most recreational activities have some obvious foreseeable economic impact, i.e. they cost the participants something to engage in them. Tickets for the movies, gas for the country drive, food at a restaurant. Sex is no different, especially at that age. To be safe or elude pregnancies mean buying some sort of product to address that. If the product fails, which is not all that uncommon, or if it was not used in the first place, then a foreseeable outcome is a pregnancy and that most certainly has an economic impact whether it is terminated or carried to term. An unexpected but easily foreseeable outcome these days is some STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease) that is clearly a potential uninvited guest to every such intimate get-together.
Because those obvious and predictable costs stem from a voluntary, recreational activity, I do not believe it falls to me, as a taxpayer, to pick up some or all of the tab. I think that cost is ALL on the participants. That someone CHOSE not to protect themselves or neglected to protect themselves from any of the possible outcomes does not raise in me, directly or indirectly, a requirement to foot the bill.
And as far as government is concerned, I do not think it is any of their business either; and I mean that totally. I do not think it within the power and authority of government to prohibit or forbid those activities. But neither do I think it within their Constitutional authority to facilitate it and ask us to pay for the outcome. However, that is not a moral objection, it is a philosophical and political objection, an economic objection to thinking it OK to ask me to pay for someone else’s choices and voluntary behaviors. I am opposed to that.
But that is a completely different issue from whether or not it is ever OK to hurl spiteful, hurtful, demeaning invectives at someone simply because you are in political disagreement and that was the ONLY issue addressed in the post on Hatred.
So c’mon, get over it! Either deal with the real issue and decide if you are OK with the use of hate speech so long as it is your side doing it, or not. And then openly say so and support your opinion as I have tried to support mine and then we’ll let readers judge for themselves. If you want to address and debate those other issues that is fine, I’ll be happy to do so. But they are separate ones for other posts and discussions.
So first, answer the question posed here and do it publicly for all to see as I have expressed my opinion publicly. Stand proudly for what you think is right and wrong or sit down and shut up when you become a target.